Discussion regarding Grassroots in Nuclear PR

________________________________________________________________ Andrew Dodson <amdodson@email.uark.edu> I received the attached call for papers yesterday. Conference session topics are a great way to keep on the beat of how people are dealing with current issues in power. However, the list of "solutions" does not cover much market issues at all. The policy of renewables integration is the AD HOC driving the organization of this function. Nuclear will never be considered here because it in effect makes a large majority of this research unnecessary. Dispatchable, reliable, efficient, and SUSTAINABLE nuclear energy makes all of these topics sound near laughable. We now have ORDERS of MAGNITUDE of the microgrid
(mini.. instead of milli? and nano grids... WHAT IS THAT, your HOUSE?!?)
 
In conclusion, the grid should be a system of cables to deliver power to your home from a generator. Please keep it simple, humanity.
  This program is designed for electric utility engineers and managers who are concerned with the designing, operating and planning of electric power facilities and their engineering colleagues.
  Smart Grid and Green Technologies
*Basic Concepts-Renewable Integration
*Operational/Communications Issues
*Cyber Security Issues
*Future Scenarios-Sustainability
*Decentralized Systems  
Technology Issues
*Distributed Generation and Storage
*Plug-in Vehicles and their Impacts
*Energy Storage Options
*Power Electronics Applications/Power Quality
*Integrated Systems
*Sensors for Smart Grid   Operational/Planning Issues
*Planning in a Deregulated Environment
*Expert System Applications
*Supplying Critical Loads-DC Minigrids, Microgrids and Nanogrids
*Internet and Power Grid
*Dynamics and Control of DG Sources  
Economic Issues
*Economic aspects of Smart Grid
*Energy/Power Marketing
*Transmission Access/Pricing
*Investment Opportunities & Challenges
*Customer Choice/Reliability Aspects    
cordially, AMD  
ps. I hate to be such a basher of others, but its all just unbearably silly. The more infuriating bit still, is that there is a true recognition of the frameworks that good power decisions are made in.
  ______________________________________________________________
Rick Maltese <malteserick@gmail.com>
 
I couldn't resist quoting N Nadir from a recent comment made at Energy Collective:
http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/450556/what-are-capacity-factor-impacts-new-installed-renewable-power-generation-capaciti
 
Quote from N Nadir:
"The serious environmental problem that so called "renewable energy" has is that even if it reached 50% capacity somewhere - it won't, but let's suppose it did - this extraordinary waste of money and resources would still be dependent on dangerous natural gas, which in the mind of any serious environmentalist with a long term view, is nothing other than disasterous. Natural gas is not safe - even if we ignore the news every few days when a gas line blows up somewhere killing people about whom we couldn't care less - it is not clean, since there is no place to dump its waste; it is not sustainable; and the practice of mining it is a crime against all future generations who will need to live with shattered, metal leaching rock beneath their feet, and huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  And let's be clear, so called "renewable energy" is nothing more than a scheme to entrench this natural gas tragedy.    As for the entirely questionable economics of this disaster, it ought to be immediately clear on inspection that any system requiring intrinsic infrastructure redundancy will be less economic than a single system that operates nearly continuously.
  The fact is that worldwide - with billions of people living in poverty - we sank a trillion bucks into this wasteful so called "renewable energy" scheme over the last decade and it has no real effect on environmental disaster before us.  
And...
  And...
  As the OP points out, this stuff doesn't last very long before breaking down. The situation will be much, much, much worse when this trillion bucks worth of short lived stuff has to make its way to landfills.   Trust me, that's not far off."
 
Rick Maltese
647-379-9655   __________________________________________________________ Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>
 
We aren't really arguing against renewable energy solar and wind, are we? Say it ain't so. It would be totally crazy not to implement solar and wind where they are feasible just so we can build more nukes?
  Bob __________________________________________________________
Robert Orr Jr <>
  Rick,
 
Yours is a spark of intelligence, even wisdom, in a dark forest of ignorance, fear, and, especially, money and power pushing the other way.  
The key words you use are, "immediately clear on inspection". The fearful and ignorant don't do much "nspecting", which implies the cerebral, and when they do, too often what they find is fed to them by the aforesaid money and power.
  Nevertheless, that is no reason to quit what we are doing.  
Rob Orr
______________________________________________________________
Corey Barcus
  "We aren't really arguing against renewable energy solar and wind, are we? Say it ain't so. It would be totally crazy not to implement solar and wind where they are feasible just so we can build more nukes?"
  We have been arguing against the 'renewable delusion', the notion that scaling up wind and solar will meaningfully displace fossils and address global warming.
  To get a good grasp of the underlying economic issues regarding these diffuse and intermittent energy sources, please take a close look at:
  GETTING TO ZERO: Is renewable energy economically viable?
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/08/1221552/-GETTING-TO-ZERO-Is-renewable-energy-economically-viable
    This recent report presents a fair picture of some of the problems Germany has encountered with their renewable development:
  http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf    
Furthermore, consider that if we are to be remotely responsible with regards to ocean acidification, we will need to quickly develop a much more powerful tool than LWRs:
 
   
So, do you believe it is safe for us to stand quiet while a confused public tries to flush $trillions down this hole? As an alternative, we are suggesting strategic investments of $billions so that we may have the tools to rapidly grow a sustainable  
-Corey Barcus  
Attachments area Preview YouTube video Alex Cannara - Ocean Acidification @ TEAC6  
Alex Cannara - Ocean Acidification @ TEAC6 _______________________________________________________________ Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>  
Again I don't think you can get to zero with just solar and wind. But it's not correct to argue that wind and solar won't be important in eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
  Bob Zannelli
    http://phys.org/news/2011-03-power-spain-historic-high.html   http://www.renewablesinternational.net/spain-sets-record-for-wind-power-production/150/537/60321/   http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/22/2508191/germany-solar-generation-record/   _________________________________________________________________ Chris Uhlik Wind and solar will always be minority contributors to global energy production with importance in rougly this order.   0. fossil carbon combustion 1. nuclear fission 2. hydro 3. biomass 4. wind & solar   The trick is to kick fossil carbon combustion out of position zero.   hydro will not rise to position 1 because of limited supply. biomass is environmentally devastating, so should be limited.
wind and solar are intermittent, so even if they get cheap, their use is limited to places with lots of hydro, or places that continue to burn fossil carbon, and even then, their contribution will stay below 30% because that's about the best fraction of the time that the wind blows and the sun shines.
  fission is the only available technology that can scale AND run at better than 50% duty cycle, around the clock, around the year.
  ___________________________________________________________ jimnina9@aol.com
  Rick, Spot-On... (your comments / quote below)
  All "renewables" are just a distraction -- a side show put on by industry and the DoE.  Its like we are all stuck back in Plato's cave.
  jim
______________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
 
Jim, largely in agreement, though I would call it "PhD welfare.". Pretty sad when we have our " best and brightest" digging ditches and filling them in again.
Meanwhile, Rome burns.   I should follow John's rule and err on incompetence instead of conspiracy.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
Andrew, electric utilities are pretty darn close to be an extension of government and quite far away from a free market.  Their profit and loss is completely dictated by the public service boards and included in this relationship are cost-plus contracts for infrastructure expansions.  You utilities don't give a damn about these added costs of FACTS and renewable energy because they just tack the bill onto the cost plus contract which in turn gets passed on to captive end users.  This is why utility stocks ate considered bond like equities.
The public service boards prohibit their  earnings growth rates to deviate far from a preset amount, never too much growth nor too little.
 
For this reason, I do not consider the utilities to be the first customers for an MSR barring the politicians in power see the truth of our words and impose a mandate on them like they are with these sub par performing renewables.
Without the political mandate, there is simply no financial incentive for them to take on the additional risk of a new design, regardless of how lucrative the reward is.
Let's say a utility did adopt an MSR and made a ton of profit off that otherwise smart decision.  The public service board would step in and take that profit away from them, often in the form of a rate decrease.
 
________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
 
I would strongly encourage everyone interested in improving the electrical grid to read this article:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101805029
 
This wasted potential we all see are directly a product of the laws and regulations of the electrical grid!
 
I see two options, either lobby the politicians to change these deeply flawed laws OR form a company that sells carbon-free energy cheaper than (coal)
 
American natural gas directly to the heavy industrial consumers of energy, cutting out these bloated middle-man utilities.
 
Personally, I am opting for the latter but I would not besmirch those who would choose the former.    
________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone  

I imagine server farms, heavily roboticized industries, and users of industrial motors are not at all pleased with these subsynchronous resonances.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Rick Maltese <malteserick@gmail.com>
Excellent Cavan. Your posts help clarify some of my questions about utilities and their relationship to the power providers as wall as government and the public.
I never realized they could be potential allies.  
_________________________________________________________________
Stephen Boyd
outstanding point, Cavan -
 
SAB, Ph.D.
_________________________________________________________________
Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>
 
One word, Enron, that great experiment in  unregulated utilities. Another excellent example of unregulated utilities are Cable companies , is everyone happy with their cable bill. It's far more expensive to bring in a cable signal in your house than power up the entire house which includes AC, Heat, etc. Ever wonder why that is?
One word -regulation.
 
Today in some states, power production has been separated from power distribution, so at least in theory , if you can't produce power competitively , you don't have a market. This makes building a nuclear power plant extremely risky, because the capital costs are so high and generally unpredictable. Where power production and distribution are not separated, utilities have been able to throw some of the risk onto the their customers, in Florida rate payers are paying for a nuclear plant that might not even be built.
 
I know most here think LFTR will so cheap to build that it will almost be a mom and pop operation. I rather doubt that, in fact strictly speaking LFTR's only exist in the imagination of its advocates, the engineering hurdles ahead are not even known with any certainty. This isn't unique to LFTR , it's true of any new technology, the first generation nukes all went through this difficult process.
LFTR won't be any different.
 
Early nuclear power technology was developed by Big Government, working with private super giants like Westinghouse , General Electric, B & W and Combustion Engineering.
Those are the facts. So stop hating government, its what makes things actually happen, when it partners with private enterprise to get something done in those cases where the risk is too high for private enterprise.
 
Bob Zannelli
 
_______________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
 
Hi Bob,
  My Responses to your email.
  1) Enron was an example of some mixture of criminal activity exploiting a poorly designed electricity pricing system run by the California ISO:
http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/19.pdf.
Included in this pricing system were some arbitrage opportunities independent of the criminal activity.  Beyond this, II don't care who's to blame.  I just want politicians to fix the electricity pricing system so stuff like this wouldn't keep happening over and over again.
 
2) The cable companies are an excellent example about how monopolies / oligopolies even ostensibly government regulated ones result in very little benefit relative to the cost provided to the end users as illustrated by South Park:
 
3) You are correct
"utilities have been able to throw some of the risk onto the their customers" this is a moral hazard akin to a cost-plus contract.  Funny thing though, if we look at the history of the space industry, much of the government done was under a similar cost-plus financial structure, but instead of incentivizing risk taking resulting in some awesome technology getting built, you get the following as illustrated by Elon Musk:
"The game that [Boeing and Lockheed] play is to lowball the offer, then raise the costs after the contract has been won, and then play this game of doing the limbo where they try to raise the costs of the project right up to the threshold of cancellation," Musk said. "You create an incentive to maximize the cost. So the big government contractors really hate the fixed-price, milestone-based approach."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/elon-musk-spacex_n_2727312.html
 
In fact I would speculate that much of the ballyhooed cost overruns associated with the light water reactors were a result of this very same behavior. Same incentives, same results.  What gets rewarded, gets repeated.  
My point of view is that without coming into this with any gripe against big government, that it is responsible for the failure for nuclear technology to live up to its promise.  The utter failures of big government to incentivise and itself make sound engineering and business decisions in the nuclear field is precisely why we are still using 40 year old technology and that the field as a whole has failed to ever achieve above 26% annual market penetration.  This is even more a shame because based on the technical data I have seen measured by Oak Ridge, for 40 freaking years the government has squandered the opportunity to develop the most promising technology since the discovery of combustion.
On account of this data, I can no longer sit back and trust the government to ever develop this technology. The only option I see is to have a private industry with better incentive structures get this off the ground.
 
4) As for molten salt reactors only existing in the mind of its advocates, this is patently false:
 
  5) "low costs of $ 2/ W and 3 cents/ kWh is an achievable objective. A $ 2/ watt capital  cost contributes $ 0.02/ kWh to the power cost, assuming a 40 year life, 8% interest rate,  and 90% capacity factor. With plentiful, inexpensive thorium fuel, LFTR can generate electricity at < $ 0.03/ kWh, underselling power generated by burning coal."
--Hargraves, Robert (2012-11-06). THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal (Kindle Locations 3078-3080).
. Kindle Edition.
We can go through his cost estimates in detail if you wish.
 
6) Regarding the engineering hurdles, have you identified some specific challenges with the LFTR design or are you going to just chuck some of Russell's teapots at it?
 
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video South Park - Cable Company
  South Park - Cable Company
 
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Maloney
  Bob,

 
There are two schools of thought, as I see it.
 
1.  WWS won't work to energize a modern society's electric grid, and we're certain of that. So just forget about it and get busy building nukes, which we're sure will work.
 
2.  WWS won't work to energize a modern electric grid, but it's an attractive and virtuous quest.  So keep doing it, as rapidly as possible, until the amount of penetration gets to a level where it becomes clear to everybody that it's not a viable overall solution.  That will provide the necessary proof that we were right all along.
 
At that point everybody in our society will be obliged to embrace nukes, unless willing to accept a changed  lifestyle in which electric energy is not always available.  (Hah!)
 
Tim
 
_____________________________________________________________
Jorgensen, Lars
 
Tim,
  You may be over-pessimistic about renewables here.
With enough natural gas you can make renewables work – it just costs a lot and may well increase CO2 emissions (keeping peaking plants spinning ready to output power at a moments notice).
 
I think with high temp nukes and thermal storage of molten salts we can use our nukes at close to full power all the time and use the thermal storage for peaking and get decent economics.  The renewables aren’t cost effective but if a society decided we are going to have them and everyone else (all the other power generators and the distribution grid) will just have to adapt then I’d still pursue nukes to be the workhorse.   Renewables are really tough on LWR economics but I think high temp nukes can work with them.
 
Lars
 
_________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
 
Tim please add a third one:
  There are niche markets for WWS.  While I am skeptical of any claim of WWS ever achieving >30% annual market penetration, while I find many WWS promoters abuse of their technology's performance statistics ethically vile, while I will say this in any discussion of the grid, I am not going to outright fight them directly. I am not going to line up my severely outgunned resources in a formal battle line to get shot to pieces by the equivalent of the British empire.  I am yielding the whole electrical grid over to them to ruin because I don't have the resources to stop them from ruining it.  Instead, I am going to go out find all those industrial grid customers who will be none to happy paying extra for energy or that will be none to happy seeing their expensive industrial motors, robots, and servers blow up, all just to make some severely misguided people feel better about themselves.  I am going to sell them energy directly so that they can completely disconnect themselves from the madness of our national electrical grid.  So, as far as the issues of connecting WWS to the grid, I say let them.  Let the people have exactly what they voted for and see for themselves what a disaster a 90% WWS grid would be.  Besides trying to warn the people off this path, there are far more productive uses of our resources building our own vision of the grid via going directly to the industrial end users.
 
 
Cavan Stone
 
* I am skeptical of any claim of WWS ever achieving >30% annual market penetration and not sending our grid back to third world style grid unreliability.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>
 
The right wing in this country is certifiable, but here is where the left lives in a fantasy land. General prosperity is directly tied to the availability of affordable energy. Some may dream of simpler times but no rational person would want to live in earlier times, the past was not better than the present and if we don't screw the pooch , the future will be better than then the present. We have been living well off fossil fuels but we are  changing the environment  in ways that won't be good, we need to figure out a way to retain affordable energy without burning fossil fuels. You would think this would be obvious. But the power of the fossil fuel industry allied with religious crazies on the right, aided and abetted unwittingly by the Luddites of the left are taking us over the cliff. Our government is so clogged with tea party crazies who see their job as destroying evil government,  that we can't even get modest curbs on CO 2 production , let alone the full court press needed to revolutionize our energy industry. The issue isn't solar verses nuclear, the issue is anything that works verses fossil fuels. I am sorry to say, that currently there seems to be little reason to be optimistic.

 

Bob Zannelli
  =
_______________________________________________________________
Robert Hargraves
  I agree with Cavan, however there are "merchant" generators such as Vermont Yankee that sell to the "grid" at market prices for hour-ahead, day-ahead, etc. That is a business whose returns are not regulated by public service boards. However, the states feed-in-tariffs and renewable energy mandates mean these merchants work in a distorted market, not driven by price. Hence the closure of at least two nuclear power plants.

 
Bob
 
THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal book
News on Facebook
Radiation: Safe Within Limits brochure and presentation
 
_________________________________________________________________
Robert Hargraves
 
Cavan,
 
I think this is possible now. After all, in Vermont you can buy cow-power direct from the farmers. Businesses and even homes in NH can select their power production company; it doesn't have to be NHPS.
  Bob
 
________________________________________________________________
Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>
  This is because Fossil plants shift environmental costs onto the public.
A carbon tax would be fair and make nukes more competitive
 
Bob Zannelli
  In a message dated 8/7/2014 9:12:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.hargraves@gmail.com writes:
I agree with Cavan, however there are "merchant" generators such as Vermont Yankee that sell to the "grid" at market prices for hour-ahead, day-ahead, etc. That is a business whose returns are not regulated by public service boards. However, the states feed-in-tariffs and renewable energy mandates mean these merchants work in a distorted market, not driven by price. Hence the closure of at least two nuclear power plants.
 
Bob
 
THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal book
News on Facebook
Radiation: Safe Within Limits brochure and presentation
 
=
_________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
Total agreement with you Bob on the carbon tax and I would tell congress they should pass one.  I should note however that we have limited resources compared to other groups at play.  And every item you add to our requests halves the probability of it passing.  
I would strongly urge people to keep the message simple and avoid joining battle with groups on the periphery of the issue.  I would strongly suggest we keep the message as simple as possible, "we want a reasonable regulatory pathway forwards for Molten Salt  Reactors in 5 years, comparable to what Canada has already in the works.". If we score this one simple item, we solve most if not all of the energy challenges we discuss here.  If you doubt this, I can walk you through the Oak Ridge's data and the wonderful work of many recipients here, that strongly demonstrate this to be true.
   
_______________________________________________________________
jimnina9@aol.com  
Carbon Tax = Friedman Fraud
Never worked, never will (a full decade of failure in Europe)  
The idea behind the carbon tax is to financialize pollution. Yep, so JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs can create derivative like scams to amass wealth. The resulting scams have resulted in massive environmental degradation.  
Back on topic, the carbon tax idea is the wet dream of the financial industry, so they incubated the idea in academia. The army of cant do / so teach have formulated justifications for this fraud -- just as they formulated justifications for derivatives and privatization.  
To put it all in perspective, if you bother to look back in time these academics never missed an opportunity to justify one fraud or another (Enron, Supply Side Economics, De-Regulation, Off-Shoring, the utopia Service Economy).  
Academia has become the mouthpiece of money, nothing more: thanks Milton Friedman.  
 
_________________________________________________________________
Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>   Well I can't disagree with this.  My hope was for a carbon tax that isn't a scam.   Bob Zannelli _________________________________________________________________ Cavan Stone   Robert, you are mostly correct.  Although we have to look at the laws very carefully so we don't get classified as an electric utility and saddled with legal requirement to either subsidize Joe B Scamartist's POS windfarm or buy "carbon indulgences" from Goldman Sachs even if though our energy would be carbon free.   _________________________________________________________________ Peter J Millar   I don’t know what all this about “academic thought”. It seems more like a deeply ontological problem about large things and our human relation to them.   Clearly, the nuke industry, whatever that is, has done a piss poor job of keeping it safe and sane… and perhaps that is another larger truth about us beings. We can’t handle power without it biting us in the ass. Or can we?   Further, “we” as a species-culture have taken the clear “evidence” of global warming and eviscerated it. Its now “climate change”. How weak and circularly defeated is that?   And thus the whole reason for doing anything other than the status quo is suspect. “We” (perhaps as a species being), cannot grasp the enormity of “it”. Its just too big to understand. And its always been changing. And perhaps those in power just recognize that keeping the populace “destabilized” is profitable. ( e.g. US approach to "third" world) and that makes some kind of evil, self-destructive     Unless we who presume to greater understanding can demonstrate the driver   >>>>> global warming driven by human activity <<<<<<   in such a way that is becomes understood and the need to act manifest as imperative, then short-sighted thinking and opportunistic behavior, greed, scams, crap contracts, and the assholes who seem to run the show will prevail. ANd people will choose to just live their lives as thay can.  
I still have yet to see, read or witness a clear and simple elucidation, a demonstration of global warming due to added CO2, methane, or anything else for that matter (and no the Arrhenius eq. won’t suffice)
 
The claims are couched in data, plots, references to monster computer models, lots of impenetrable scientific information and myriad other “claims”…
 
And that won’t do it.
 
Might as well accept… ? per Oppenheimer  after the Gita-d  
“I am become death, the shatterer of worlds”.
  Or…  adress the problem - that people do not understand the significance or fact of global warming. And if they do, even sort of, they dont know what the f*%# to do about it.
 
 
  Peter J Millar, M.S. Eng. CEM
 
Building Energy Solutions
775-345-7300
  Buildingenergy1@gmail.com
On LinkedIn at Peter J. Millar
_________________________________________________________________
George Erickson
 
Regarding safety, see the attachment.  NO ONE has died from commercial nuclear power production in Western Europe or the Western Hemisphere, but MILLIONS have died from the burning of coal and oil. Chernobyl “design” was illegal everywhere else in the world, and
 
See also Fuku facts.
 
If you have evidence that any of this is wrong, please elaborate.
 
George Erickson - www.tundracub.com
Member, Union of Concerned Scientists -- Member, Thorium Energy Alliance
-- past V P American Humanist Assoc.
Replace carbon-fueled power plants with modern, safe, efficient, nuclear reactors that create NO CO2. ---- Go nuclear or go "extinct".
 
See http://thoriumforum.com/thorium-nuclear-power-climate-change-killer-21st-century
 
From: Peter J Millar
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:00 PM
To: Cavan Stone
 
Preview attachment safety graphic.jpg
Image
safety graphic.jpg
Preview attachment Fuku facts.docx
Word Fuku facts.docx
_______________________________________________________________
Robert B. Zannelli <RBZannelli@aol.com>
 
At Chernobyl the operators took about six actions absolutely not allowed by their procedures. It's a really a story about a shift engineer who should not have been allowed to run a lemonade stand, let along a nuclear power plant. He bullied the operators into violating their procedures and when one operator refused to carry out a dangerous order he found someone else to do it. The RMBK was not a pile of junk, it was driven into an accident by reckless and ignorant operation.
 
Bob Zannelli
___________________________________________________________________
Timothy Maloney
 
Lars,
 
But natural gas can't be a long-term part of the electricity picture. Even if the fracking proponents are correct that the US can eventually extract over 2000 TCF, we're going through it at 25 TCF per year.  Only 80 or so years' worth.
 
Then we're screwed for cheap nitrogen fertilizer.
 
Tim
 
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Conley
 
Bob - Point well taken re: Chernobyl operators, but in my view what the world needs is a "Homer-proof" reactor. Meaning that, no matter how incompetent the operator,  the mess they cause won't result in a widespread catastrophe.
 
That's a big reason why I'm an MSR fan, because a catastrophic spill from an MSR would be measured in square meters, not square kilometers. And I don't think the importance of that can be overstated, since what the public is really freaked out about is not so much contamination per se, but rather the spread of contamination. With a damaged MSR, you'd get a contaminated reactor building, not a contaminated countryside.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Alex Cannara
 
Boy, go outta town for a day and have b'fast at The Madonna Inn and look what hits the fan!
 
It's essential that we all understand the physical realities of power choices.  Scientifically speaking...
 
a) Combustion bad.
 
2) Local solar, good.
 
3) Nuclear, regulated, good.
 
d) Advanced nuclear, absolutely essential.
 
The reason wind is not on the list, Bob, is that it's absurdly inefficient for the investments in it of resources, land, power loss, species threats, maintenance and even worker loss.  For example...

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/
 
There's no point in spending $ & land & resources on something that produces <3W/sq meter, and has all the other issues above...

http://tinyurl.com/b7uboqe

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015021/  (video, note graph axes, and attached)  
And, if we want to understand the irrelevance of things like Fukushima &
Chernobyl to western nuclear power, read Mahaffey's "Atomic Accidents".
 
Chernobyl's sibling RBMK reactors, by the way, are safely running in other locations around the old CCCP.
--
Alex
_________________________________________________________________
Alex Cannara
Right, the gas issues are bigger than expected already.  So are fertilizer issues -- note Toledo & Lake Erie.
--
Alex
 
_________________________________________________________________
Ed Pheil
I tried to look for a way to request nuclear power as my electricity option, but there is no such option or even a tool to figure out the fraction of production from each source e.g. nuclear from each of the companies available in my area (national grid / old Niagara Mohawk territory)
 
Ed Pheil
 
edpheil@gmail.com
518-488-7786
________________________________________________________________
Robert Hargraves
I wrote to NEI a couple of times requesting they encourage their members to file such tariffs, but no response at all from NEI.
 
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
John Kutsch
 
Dear Ed and Robert,
 
That is such an awesome idea! Making All Nuclear as my electricity option would make me the happiest guy around.
 
Could even justify / show support for keeping Kewannee and SONGS and Byron Facilities open.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Cavan Stone
Gents, I strongly encourage you to not pin your arguments on running out of fossil fuel inventory.  The American companies are purposefully understating those reserves because they are trying prop up the price and just like the 2000s again, as soon as everyone starts panicking about a shortage and discussing alternatives, they'll pull a "surprise" revision to the upside for those estimates.  That's the game they play.  
There is plenty of gas in the sea: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21752441 and people will continue to burn it until either our atmosphere is like Venus OR when we deliver a cheaper alternative.
________________________________________________________________
Walford, Graham V
I am also a person that sits largely by the sidelines and watches the discussions and try to make sense of our playing field.  I am not sure that we will find an answer through logic or persuasion and in the models I/we have worked.  Likewise using nuclear etc etc and discussing that is also not an answer.  We have to go to the mirror and look at us in the mirror.  We humans do not have the same internal codes of ethics and care levels and groups like ISIS, Putin etc have no interest whatsoever in our beliefs or  even know they exist or even care.
 
I believe that what is at work is evolution here and what will be selected will not be very much and that the world after this will be different.  With the remaining resource, its vulnerability, the rate at which we as a species find ourselves distracted from our true situation is like people fighting in a flowerbed and trampling everything underfoot. - Our own congress and others in governments will look to self interest first - not common interest
 
Having said all that, looking to a future where some of us can survive and live in a different world is most critical.  I for my part would prefer to share that new world with you guys who lead a thinking argument
 
Graham
 
______________________________________________________________
Andrew Dodson
 
Include something along the lines of:
Bulk Soar and Wind production is in theory to be sourced from the south-west and mid-west, respectively. Some off shore wind resources exist also, but will be fully utilized locally. The same environmental groups promoting these renewable resources SIMULTANEOUSLY oppose the transmission line expansion projects required to utilize these resources AND ALSO oppose fracking for natural gas fuel, which is ideally located near to where the renewable resource is, much to Oklahoma's and Texas's delight. This local natural gas is used to support the variable output renewable at low cost. ( Locality of natural gas is important due to the high costs of transportation and storage. )

 
A policy of just universally hating energy could not be more effective. The prior paragraph is certainly prefaced by "they never mention nuclear".
 
cordially, AMD
 
________________________________________________________________
Ed Pheil
 
If such choices were available, it could have a downside depending on the mix of pro and anti-nuclear in the area, and it is easier to take down a nuke plant than get enough support to sustain it. This would take some investigation by someone more knowledgeable in the industry. But I had AssUMeD, incorrectly, that energy source choice was part of energy choice not just cost. But, nuclear is not even included in the green energy options, only hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and solar/wind are mostly gas.
 
Having said that I personally would pay a premium to not use coal or gas to reduce their unpaid downsides. Alternately, taxing coal/gas to pay the coal/gas (to a lesser extent) medical could help pay for the current healthcare, including mining and cleanup, but it would only be a temporary funding stream, presumably.
 
Ed Pheil
 
edpheil@gmail.com
518-488-7786
________________________________________________________________
Ed Pheil
 
Byron? Is that The Excelon in Chicago area? They haven't announced shutting down yet, right? Just posturing to get more balanced regulatory system, I.e. stop solar/wind biased power purchase to get local support like the new Obama policy suggested of keeping existing nukes.
 
Ed Pheil
 
edpheil@gmail.com
518-488-7786
____________________________________________________________
Andrew Dodson
  amdodson@email.uark.edu
What IS the fundamental difference in the US Government between 1960-70 and now? Just compounded idiocy over time? Something worse? :[
 
I totally agree we need them to back an MSR properly, but the web of bureaucracy is just too thick. Hopefully some good comes from the speed JK gave before the IAEA. I wonder what the Chinese think about all this. They are probably better informed on it than our own government, hah!
_______________________________________________________________
Ed Pheil
 
I knew NIMBYism, whether turbines, solar panels or power lines would eventually be what was the publically visible incarnation and downfall of the low power density.
 
Ed Pheil
 
edpheil@gmail.com
518-488-7786
_________________________________________________________________
Ed Pheil
 
Including low power density of fracking vs conventional gas/oil.
 
Ed Pheil
 
edpheil@gmail.com
518-488-7786
________________________________________________________________
Alex Cannara
 
Agree.  We stood next to one of 2 generators at Diablo Canyon Wed. They're no bigger than a stretch Escalade.  Each one generates >10% of all California's electricity.
Together, they produce >20%, 24/7 with ~90% uptime.  
The shafts into the generators could be seen turning smoothly at 1800 rpm and each of the 2 shafts would have been easy to get arms around -- when stopped!
 
The concept of power density for nuclear, even 33%-efficient steam versions, becomes clear when you can stand next to two 1.2 billion-watt generators that are turned by stored fusion energy in about 1 pound of Uranium consumption per hour.
--
Alex
 
_____________________________________________________________
Dana Runge
Alex,
 
Did they tell you that Diablo Canyon was originally planned to be a 6 reactor site? You’ll notice that the intake cove is wide enough to include three times as many intakes. If I recall correctly, the plan was for 5 power reactors, and a sixth nuclear desalination reactor.
 
________________________________________________________________________
Alex Cannara
YEs, Dana.  Thanks for the reminder.  That would make the site supply 50% of our power and whatever 1GW could do for fresh water.
 
The craziness of calif. law & politics now is that a huge desalinator is coming on line in Carlsbad in 2017, running partly on combustion power. whereas if we fixed San Onofre, it would add little emissions.
 
Also, our insanity is documented in this crazy event...
 
Diablo installed more efficient low-pressure turbines a while back, that gained power output of 40MW each (80MW total), without nuclear changes.
 
A more efficient version of their 2 high-pressure turbines was also available, which would have added 70MW total additional, with no reactor
 
However, Calif. state law says "no new nuclear generation".  If they had installed the new high-pressure turbines, they'd have gone over the
100MW expansion limit set in their license and the anti-nukes would have sued & made hearings on the plant drag on, so PG&E simply left the old turbines in place.
 
Thus, some unenvironmental 'environmentalists' have forced us to burn gas/coal or whatever, to supply 70MW of electricity that would have been emissions free.
 
We need to educate folks and reverse this insanity.  The CEC hearing at UCLA is on the 20th.
--
Alex
 
Rick Maltese
647-379-9655
   
MY ENERGY RELATED WEBSITES and ASSETS
http://energyrealityproject.com
http://thoriummsr.com
http://deregulatetheatom.com
http://MsSci.com
http://economicsofnuclear.com
http://nuclearclarity.wordpress.com
 
Two Sister Facebook Groups I Created
http://www.facebook.com/groups/energyreality/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/deregulatetheatom.com
 
MY WEB DESIGN
webcompose.ca  webdesign services
MY MUSIC
leadsheetz.com  music services - transposing, composing, teaching etc
rickmaltesemusic.com  piano gig page
 
 
 
On 9 August 2014 18:52, Alex Cannara <cannara@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
YEs, Dana.  Thanks for the reminder.  That would make the site supply
50% of our power and whatever 1GW could do for fresh water. The craziness of calif. law & politics now is that a huge desalinator is coming on line in Carlsbad in 2017, running partly on combustion power. whereas if we fixed San Onofre, it would add little emissions.
Also, our insanity is documented in this crazy event...
Diablo installed more efficient low-pressure turbines a while back, that gained power output of 40MW each (80MW total), without nuclear changes.
A more efficient version of their 2 high-pressure turbines was also available, which would have added 70MW total additional, with no reactor changes.
However, Calif. state law says "no new nuclear generation".  If they had installed the new high-pressure turbines, they'd have gone over the 100MW expansion limit set in their license and the anti-nukes would have sued & made hearings on the plant drag on, so PG&E simply left the old turbines in place.
Thus, some unenvironmental 'environmentalists' have forced us to burn gas/coal or whatever, to supply 70MW of electricity that would have been emissions free.
We need to educate folks and reverse this insanity.  The CEC hearing at UCLA is on the 20th. --
Alex
On 8/9/2014 3:29 PM, Dana Runge wrote:
Alex,
Did they tell you that Diablo Canyon was originally planned to be a 6 reactor site? You’ll notice that the intake cove is wide enough to include three times as many intakes. If I recall correctly, the plan was for 5 power reactors, and a sixth nuclear desalination reactor.
Dana

On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Alex Cannara <cannara@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Agree.  We stood next to one of 2 generators at Diablo Canyon Wed. They're no bigger than a stretch Escalade.  Each one generates >10% of all California's electricity.  Together, they produce >20%, 24/7 with ~90% uptime.
The shafts into the generators could be seen turning smoothly at 1800 rpm and each of the 2 shafts would have been easy to get arms around -- when stopped!
The concept of power density for nuclear, even 33%-efficient steam versions, becomes clear when you can stand next to two 1.2 billion-watt generators that are turned by stored fusion energy in about 1 pound of Uranium consumption per hour. -- Alex
 
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *